that affect the lives of a group of people that are 5-7% of the population?

Only 2% of the country is Jewish, yet two Jews sit on the High Court.

We all know that some of the most contentious cases that will come before the court in the next few years involve gay and lesbian equality.

In a pluralistic society, does it not make sense that at least one of the Justices involved in these, in some instances, life and death decisions be a member of the very group that is affected by the decisions?

If only so that Scalia and Thomas and Alito are forced to deal with an equal, on a daily basis, from the group they so eagerly seek to oppress.

4. It means the white members have to deal with a black person every day in their job

while they are deciding affirmative action cases.

And yes I know Thomas votes against his own community's self interests, but he is an extraordinary exception to the rule.

There is something profoundly bizarre, for example, about nine men making life and death decisions about a woman's access to abortion. Women are more than half of the country. They should occupy at the very least four or five seats on the USSC.

I'm not suggesting that ONLY gay justices can decide issues pertinent to gay people.

I'm suggesting that it's a bit unbalanced that ONLY straight justices do.

And I"m not suggesting they will necessarily make the wrong decision either.

What I'm suggesting is that as long as there is a clamor for a woman and a Latina, why not a similar clamor for a lesbian?

The justice system in America is supposed to be where the average person can go to get redress for wrongs, including wrongs perpetuated by the government. To make the highest Court in the land a bit less male and a bit less white and a bit less straight should not be such a controversial idea. We have many more-than-qualified individuals who would fit the bill.

is completely subjective. The President is capable of finding the "highest quality nominee" while also paying attention to their life stories. Historically, there always are a whole host of considerations going into the selection of a USSC nominee, including race, gender, geographical balance, life stories, etc.

and other considerations go into the selection process (along with qualifications) then it's not that tough to find a superbly qualified lesbian. I don't see much objection to the notion of finding a superbly qualified woman or latina. It's only sexual orientation that seems to raise such ire.

First, the difference between "preference" and "orientation" is vast and the use of the word "preference" is not neutral. We are talking about people's identities, not behavior. This is important because it is a common and age-old excuse for mistreatment and oppression to characterize it as the fault of the victim, something they "chose" or related to their behavior. We never want to be justifying oppression and inequality.

As to your question - why should it matter? Exactly. Why must we select only heteros?

This is another conservative talking point - that diversity in hiring and selection is a matter of picking people ONLY because of their ethnicity, or in this case orientation. In fact, the opposite is true. By broadening the search we increase the amount of talent available, we are not choosing diversity over talent. Also, groups that have been left behind - logically and obviously - include more available talent per capital then those from the dominant social group, who do not need to work as hard, are not held to as high a standard, and have fewer opportunities.

So yes! by all means. Let's go for the best possible talent, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or orientation rather than restricting ourselves to fishing first in the same old over-fished pond for the pampered, fat and lazy fish - white heterosexual males.

But they are, for the most part. (By "they" I mean those holding most of the power and wealth in the country.)

My fat and lazy was part of the fishing pond analogy - fat and lazy fish, as compared to fish that had to struggle, that had to swim against the current.

When people in one group do not need to work as hard or do as well as those in another group to reach the same levels - and anyone denying that this is the case is denying racism, sexism, and bigotry - it is completely reasonable to assume that they are not as strong, and I think that is the case.

It is not a matter of "taking it into account" it is rather a recognition that race, gender and orientation are already taken into consideration - of course. That is what racism and bigotry and sexism are all about. Saying we should not take it into account means ignore the existing imbalance and inequality. That perpetuates the existing imbalance and inequality.

I do not understand this very odd thing, a feature of modern liberalism: people claim to support gay rights, gender equality, and say they are opposed to bigotry but then deny inequality and imbalances in their arguments. Which is it? Where do they really stand? Hard to tell. I think many stand on the side of privilege and bigotry, but know that this is socially unacceptable and incompatible with their self-images as "enlightened" and "progressive" individuals.

So we hear people say "don't get me wrong, I support (insert progressive cause) BUT (insert right wing or bigoted argument) so don't you dare call me a (insert label.)

It is a wonder people can think clearly about anything with those contradictions rattling around in their heads.

I'm hetero, I don't "Prefer" women. That is to whom I am attracted. That is who I AM. There is no preference involved.

The connotation is, as ruggerson said "choice". You can discriminate based on a person's choices. You cannot discriminate based on who someone IS. That is why Rethuglicans who want to discriminate against gays always call it "Sexual Preference" and those who are in favor of equal rights for the GLBT community call it "Sexual Orientation".

If you want to be identified as someone who likes the idea of discriminating against the GLBT community, by all means, continue with how you are phrasing what we are talking about.

17. You just named EIGHT different groups and totally neglected Native Americans.

Being forced onto reservations back in the day, Native Americans are the forgotten bunch. Out o' sight, out o' mind, I guess. Gay white people screaming about being represented, and fuck the natives. Cool. Shit never changes.

24. Yup that's the problem with identity politics. The fundamental flaws just lend themselves to every

conceivable stance and outrage. Ultimately the person selected should be judged by how fairly they treat all people, not by the color of their skin, their heritage, their religion, the sexual orientation or their gender.

You are making the opposite argument from the one you think you are making.

Yes!!!

Belonging to an arbitrary group should not be more important than the nature of the individual.

Absolutely.

Now, where is that a problem....hmmmm...could it be happening anywhere? ... let me think....what group has benefited from privilege and disproportionate access to power and resources ... because we would not want that! Can you think of any group that gets this sort of advantage?

'we the people' gladly hand it over. All we can be bothered doing is voting, and then we expect those three individuals that represent us to automatically do the right thing, with zero participation from the people they supposedly work for. It's kind of sad that after the last 8 years there is still no cohesive group willing to act for 'change'. I guess the spectator sport of politics is all that matters.

152. This issue at hand is one of identity poltiics . The choice of person vs group membership

Now as for your assertion:

"The idea that we either go for diversity or we select the best candidate is a false choice. I have successfully supported and defended that assertion, and you have yet to rebut it or even address it."

I guess there is always the option of declaring yourself the winner of a debate, rather than actually debating and winning. Still you are creating a strawman argument. I am saying best qualified is the way to go. Now I never said such a choice will not increase the diversity of arbitrary subsets. I just don't think that should play a role in the selection process.

We agree about "best qualified." I say that an affirmative action approach best achieves that goal. You call that identity politics and that it should not play a role in the selection process.

I am not trying to win the debate with you so much as I am trying to clarify the two positions.

In what way is my argument a straw man argument? I freely admit to struggling to understand what you are actually saying - it is not very clear, in my opinion. But if I have misunderstood your argument, and so misrepresented it, I would like to rectify that. I have no motive to intentionally misrepresent your argument for the purpose of knocking it down. You can't know that, but I welcome you to test it.

121. I apologize unconditionally for my muddled message. In my defense though, I never implied that all

Native Americans were straight. I would be MORE than happy to support a gay Native American for a gig with the Supremes.

"Screaming" was the worst word I could have used to try to make the point that it seems to me Native American isn't considered a qualification for a seat, but gay and female are, and for that I am sorry.

If any one group deserves to be represented by having a member occupying a seat on the Supreme Court, it would be Native Americans in my opinion, gay or not. I stand by that opinion.

Having ancestors who were forced to march along the "Trail of Tears", I would never joke about genocide.

123. There most certainly are. I never implied that there weren't. I wasn't trying to put anyone down.

I did what I usually do; I posted my thoughts without thinking them through. I apologize for that. I apologize to everyone I've offended, unconditionally. I posted from a narrow view, and offended fellow DU'ers by not thinking through what I was posting. I apologize.

Gay or Straight, Native Americans have been treated worse on this continent than any group I can think of since the arrival of whites from Europe. I'm going to go so far as to say that I think they've been treated FAR worse than gays and lesbians. Back in the day, gay could be hidden. Being Native American couldn't. Native Americans were killed on sight, and sometimes hunted for sport. I'd even venture a guess that there have been instances where gay Europeans killed Native Americans just to avoid having their "manhood" questioned. "Go along to get along", as it were.

Native Americans have suffered worse treatment on this continent than African slaves. Doubt that? Native Americans were being hunted while African slaves were being housed and fed. Native Americans were LOWER than African slaves. Sell an African and kill an Indian. Africans were considered and treated like beasts of burden, and Native Americans were considered and treated like pests worthy of nothing more than extermination.

Google "Manifest Destiny" and "Indian Removal". It was the stated policy of the United States government to allow Native Americans to live east of the Mississippi River ONLY if they had assimilated into the white European culture of the moment. Proper clothing. Christianity. European values and practices. All forced on a group of people because they weren't as tall, weren't as light skinned, and didn't read the language.

Google "Gay Removal" as a policy of the United States government. Crickets?

I'd love to see a Native American nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court. My grandfather (a fullblood Cherokee Indian whose father has a number on the Dawes Rolls may he RIP) was actually named after a Supreme Court justice: John Catron.

I don't give a fuck whether the next Supreme Court appointee is Gay, Lesbian, or Straight. I'd just like to see that person be someone whose ancestry is rooted and documented to be of Native American heritage. We got fucked. Time to fuck back.

For the record, if our elders had learned at some point, after being screwed time and time again, to stop signing phony treaties with the White Man, Native Americans wouldn't be shoved off to tiny little strips of land in a couple out of the way places.

Poor leadership is NEVER a good excuse for bigotry and misrepresentation. Quit trying to pretend there are no gay Native Americans. We are out here and some of us disagree totally with your skewed assessment.

124. "a couple of out of the way places"? Is that all you see when you contrast how Native Americans

have been treated as opposed to gays? Are you saying that my "elders" were stupid to the point that they actually believed the lies they were told by white Europeans? They recognized early on that they were out-teched, out-numbered, and out-supplied. They did what they could to delay the inevitable.

"A couple"?

I didn't pretend ANYTHING in the context of gay Native Americans. I'm glad you're out there. I knew you were, in fact. In my post, I never implied that there were no gay Native Americans.

So you're gay, and claim to be Native American. Maybe you're a Native American who claims to be gay. Either way, where are your posts that gay Native Americans should be included in the pool of possible Supreme Court candidates? Or Native Americans, gay OR straight?

"Gay white people screaming?" How do you know that? It is not the case, FYI. Not all of those arguing for diversity are white, not all are gay, and not all who are gay are white. Some are Native American. Now whom are you going to express hatred toward? I am not sure that there is even one person whom you attack that fits your criteria - gay, white, and screaming.

What possible value can come from this transparent and heavy-handed attempt at setting one group against another? Why would you want to do that? Why are you talking about poc the same way bigoted whites do - as a discrete, homogeneous, "special interest" group? Why are you assuming that "gay" equals "white" equals "screaming?"

128. Nice try, but you are the one championing bigotry by insisting arbitrary groups

are more important than the nature of the person. It's a shame you lack that core liberal value, that people should judged by their words and actions not by the color of the skin, their religion, their heritage, sexual orientation or gender. You would think after claiming to know all the harm bigotry has caused, you wouldn't be one of its champions.

9. Gee what a difference in the amount of respect an argument gets here if if is gays vs other

minorities. For the record I think a woman should be chosen but I think it is very telling that selecting a woman is viewed as a positive by so many while naming a gay gets compared to having the court dress like clowns.

When it is suggested that a woman or a Latino sit on the High Court, there is not the same venom.

We were all extremely happy to finally elect a black President. There wasn't much disagreement there, as a matter of fact the vast majority of DU saw it as reason to rejoice and celebrate. An occasion of historic magnitude.

the OP says that not only straight people should be making decisions affecting gay people, and yes I have seen exactly what you have falsely stated the OP to have said, advocated here in regards to abortions. So you did a two fer. You baldly distorted what the OP said and then distorted the fact that posts doing what you complained about actually do exist.

The OP is making a point that the USSC makes decisions that affect a wide variety of groups in our country. It would be far more representative if the Court looked a bit more like the population it serves.

The case that was made was that we are a diverse country with all types of people and the SCOTUS should reflect that. It doesn't say what you are trying to imply.

Nobody is saying that the SCOTUS should segregate itself on a case by case basis. You are taking a quote about diversity and twisting it to an extreme segregationist idea. You're doing it wrong. Twisting someone's words doesn't make what you are saying fact. It just means you can't seem to understand what diversity truly is.

138. It's fascinating that this has provoked such a visceral response from you

Edited on Sun May-03-09 11:09 AM by ruggerson

that you resort to continuously twisting my words. Did you get equally upset by Hekate's OP that the appointment should go to a woman? It's been on the front page of GD/P for the last two days and it looks like you didn't even respond to it.

149. ABSOLUTELY NOT! Equality is achieved when people are judged by their

deeds, character and actions. That is the only way true equality is achieved. Identity based poltics only serves to strengthen and ensured continued bigotry and prejudice. Only when groupings become meaningless will we see the sort of true equality every liberal should be striving for.

As for affirmative action, that's topic for another discussion and would only muddy the waters, as it were.

You argument equates the actions of the aggressors with efforts to resist that aggression. This argument is not new, and has been used throughout history to defend the status quo against all progressive movements.

We would not lecture a person who is being assaulted that they should not defend themselves by saying "two wrongs do not make a right."

But perhaps you do not see diversity and affirmative action approaches as the moral equivalent of self-defense. Perhaps you do not see racism, sexism, and bigotry as the moral equivalent of an assault.

race, skin color, heritage, religion, gender or sexual orientation you are doing things wrong. I find it a false assertion that one can discriminate against others in a positive manner. Your self defense analogy is an extremely inappropriate one. What we are talking about is should Obama pass over qualified individuals just because they belong or don't belong to specific arbitrary groupinsg. The idea of doing so is not only ethically wrong, it would prove damaging to our nation as a whole.

We disagree. All I am doing is trying to get some clarity about where we disagree.

I say that an affirmative action approach is not "prejudging people by the race, skin color, heritage, religion, gender or sexual orientation," rather I think it is a recognition of and response to an existing condition, that people are already being prejudged by race, skin color, heritage, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

I am posting so that the point of view I am expressing can be read by the others here, not in hopes of changing your mind.

So are you saying that you do not agree with my position - that affirmative actions approaches are not a matter of electing people according to their group, but rather recognizing and responding to the existing conditions - that people are already being selected on that basis?

If a gay person is the best person for the job I think most people here would view that person being gay as a bonus.

I don't think Obama should start out the search limiting his choices to any minority group. I don't think he should (or will) say "find me someone who's gay" or "find me someone who's Hispanic". But I think that once he has a pool of candidates he should and will take diversity on the court into account, and give special consideration to anyone who comes from a group not currently represented or underrepresented on the Court, whether that's Hispanics, gays, Native Americans, Muslims, women, etc. But I don't think he should start out looking specifically for a gay justice or a Hispanic justice or a woman, if that makes sense.

81. Are you aware of (a) the proportion of qualified applicants who are female, etc.?

and (b) the anti-discrimination laws in this country?

Please see the other threads that explain that it is not only perfectly appropriate to consider membership in an underrepresented class when judging between two or more candidates with substantially similar qualifications - in many instances, employers have this consideration built into their own affirmative action plans, as long as the underrepresentation continues. You might want to bone up on these laws.

136. No, yours was deleted because you said something along the lines of

"Then they should pick you, if they need ignorant people." Ad hominem.

The post you replied to may be a strawman--stating that more LGBT representation might be good does not mean that more representation by idiots is equally good--but it does not "equate" gayness with ignorance.

140. It's more than a straw man. It directly equates the notion of gay representation

Edited on Sun May-03-09 11:25 AM by QC

on the court with idiot representation on the court.

At the very least it is clumsily and offensively written, and every bit as bad as the clown bit that was deleted.

When you have been around here a while you will learn that there are some very bigoted people in this community who have learned to state their prejudices just slyly enough to stay within the rules.

You will also learn, when you have been around here for a while, that diversity suddenly becomes a highly controversial issue when the queers get involved. Then all of a sudden right wing tropes like "identity politics" and "choose the most qualified" pop up like mushrooms after a rainstorm. Interesting, isn't it?

I mean Roberts made an utter display out of his wife and children when he was sworn in. I assume that none of the Supremes have ever said anything do you, but I wonder if you have asked them if they straight? They all identify as straight people, all of them.

But I'm guessing, hoping, that you wouldn't really want her on the SC.

While I think it'd be great to have a gay person on the SC, if only to annoy those other justices, I don't think that it's critical. Obviously there are huge numbers of GLBT-rights supporters who themselves are neither G,L,B or T.

Yes, I failed to phrase this in a foolproof way, but the intent was that declared belief was also important. If there IS a non-believer there (or more) then he/she/they is/are closeted in a BIG, BIG way.

This is an accepted or even REQUIRED bigotry in this country, and it needs to change.

114. The Only Solution for all, is the appointment of a Liberal to the SC

As much as I would like to see a woman appointed, because I feel women have been overlooked for this position far too long, this discussion opened my mind to quite a few other groups who have been overlooked. The only way I can see all of these people represented, is if we have a Liberal. In that way we can be sure everyone will get a fair shot.

I know President Obama speaks a lot about bipartisinship...but this is not the time to appease Republicans. This appointment is far too important to make nice with them. Obama maybe elected again & he may not, so this is one time only opportunity. We need fair and equal representation on the Court & the only way we will ever get that is with a Liberal.

It is not so much a matter of overlooking groups, nor a matter of nominating a person merely because they are from a group.

The problem is that talent is too often overlooked. Racism and sexism and bigotry deprive all of us of an immense talent pool, and of the services of those who had to fight the hardest and swim upstream to get to the same level. We need to be cautious about statements that suggest that diversity means less talent, or a favor to "them."

We should not promote the idea that we can have either diversity OR the most talented people. The more people we include for consideration, the more talent becomes available. Since people who are not from the dominant group are held to higher standards and need to work harder to get the same recognition, and since they are under-employed when compared to those in the dominant social group, we should - and do - find more talent and better talent among women and people of color and GLBTQ people. White hetero makes have more opportunities and an easier path to success.

Diversity means more quality and better talent.

Making the safe choices - from the dominate group - means less quality and less talent.

he wasn't a Democrat. If he did all the vile crap he did as a DEM I am sure many here would be making excuses for him and cursing out those of us who criticized him as purists or Trotskyists or Naderists or wanting a pony.

I'm sorry, but I don't think saying that Obama does not have to start out the search by saying specifically "I want to pick a gay person for SCOTUS" is bigoted. I don't think he should start out limiting the candidates to any minority group. He should look at all of the qualified candidates and then pick one with an eye toward diversity, whether that be a gay person, a Hispanic, another woman, a Native American, a Muslim, or any other group that is not represented or underrepresented on the Court. If you consider that bigoted I'm sorry.

135. I don't think anyone here is saying that Obama should ONLY appoint a minority.

What many people are saying is that they would like the Supreme Court to be more representative of America, because all but a handful of Supreme Court Justices have been straight white protestant men. And if the top two candidates have exactly equal qualifications, won't the candidates' identities play a role in who eventually gets the nomination? Age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, birthplace, judicial philosophy, and more will all be considered in this candidate search.

If it were all down to objective measures, a robot could choose the next Justice.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.